Short answer. Yes. Upon filing the petition, you must pay the clerk of court the docket and other lawful fees, and separately deposit P500.00 specifically earmarked to cover the costs of the proceeding — both due together at the time of filing, not at some later stage of the case.

What the law says

Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court the docket and other lawful fees and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs.

Rule 64, Section 4 — Docket and other lawful fees. Read the full provision →

Two payments at the same time

Filing a Rule 64 petition against a COMELEC or COA ruling triggers two distinct financial obligations at the same moment: the usual docket and other lawful fees charged for any petition brought before the Supreme Court, and a separate, fixed deposit specifically earmarked for costs. Both amounts are due at the time of filing itself, not at some later stage such as when the case is submitted for decision. Treating these as separate line items, rather than folding the deposit into the docket fee, makes clear that the P500.00 is earmarked for a specific purpose distinct from the general fees collected on any petition.

The fixed cost deposit

The amount for that separate deposit is set at a flat P500.00, and it exists specifically to cover the costs of the proceeding rather than functioning as an additional filing fee in itself. It is paid to the clerk of court alongside the docket fees, so a petitioner should be prepared to cover both amounts in a single transaction when the petition is actually submitted for filing. Because the deposit is fixed rather than scaled to the size or complexity of the case, a petitioner cannot reduce it by, for instance, arguing that the case involves few issues or a short record.

Why it matters procedurally

Because the deposit and fees are both due upon filing, incomplete payment can affect whether the petition is treated as properly and timely filed at all. A petitioner preparing a Rule 64 case should budget for both obligations from the very start, rather than assuming that paying the docket fee alone satisfies everything the rule requires at the moment of filing. A petitioner who shows up with only the docket fee, expecting to settle the deposit later, risks having the filing treated as deficient before the merits of the Rule 64 petition are ever reached. This obligation binds the petitioner alone; the clerk of court is not required to accept a petition on a promise to pay later, and neither COMELEC nor COA is responsible for advancing the deposit on the petitioner's behalf, since the payment secures the petitioner's own access to Rule 64 review.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.